Khalifa Uthman bin Affan - 'Ammar b Yasir during the caliphate of Uthman

'Ammar b Yasir belonged to the camp of Ali, and when Uthman was chosen as the Caliph, 'Ammar offered him his allegiance like other Muslims, but he was~ lot happy with the caliphate of Uthman. In course of time 'Ammar's opposition to Uthman increased. Accroding to an account which is recorded in Taha Hussain's book on Uthman, Uthman appropriated some of the jewelry in the Baitul Mall 'Ammar criticized Uthman for such conduct. It is reported that addressing the congregation Uthman said, " As the Caliph, I have the right to appropriate anything from the Baitul Mall I will continue to do so; let any body who object may." It is alleged that "hereupon 'Ammar stood up and criticized Uthman for such conduct. Uthman is reported to have lost temper end said, "You son of a maid servant; how dare you criticize me like that." It is alleged that at the instance of Uthman, 'Ammar was given a good beating, and carried home from the mosque in an unconscious state. It is further alleged that in view of the growing discontent against Uthman some companions in Makkah addressed a letter to Uthman criticizing his conduct, and requiring him to make amends. It is stated that this letter was brought to Uthman by 'Ammar and that on reading this letter Uthman lost temper, and kicked 'Amman

There is also the story that Uthman sent some persons as his representatives to the various provinces to inquire into the various allegations levelled against the administration. It is said that Ammar was sent to Egypt. While the representatives sent to other provinces submitted their reports to Uthman, 'Ammar did not submit any report, and chose to join the rebels in Egypt. It is further alleged that Ummar returned to Madina later, and played an active part in poisoning the atmosphere against Uthman.

All the above accounts which have come down to us, and are recorded in Taha Hussain s book Uthman appear to be self-contradictory and therefore devoid of truth. It is unbelievable that a responsible person like Uthman could publicly say that right or wrong he would appropriate the Baitul Mal to his private use. It is also inconceivable that a man of such mild disposition as Uthman should have publicly kicked an eminent companion, who had been Governor of a province.

Again if all this account of quarrels between Uthman is correct, it is inconceivable that Uthman should have deputed 'Ammar b Yasir to Egypt to report about the affairs of the province when 'Ammar was against him. It appears that all stories of Uthman's differences with 'Ammar b Yasir have no foundation in fact. Differences between Uthman end 'Ammar b Yasir cropped up only when Uthman deputed 'Ammar b Yasir to Egypt, and there he came under the influence of Muhammad b Hudhaifa and Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. All the facts that have come down to us about the differences between Uthman and 'Ammar b Yasir are so confusing and self-contradictory that much reliance cannot be placed on them.